“It does change the situation. You’ve got a Russian government that has made a conscious decision to use its military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives. It’s the first time since 1939 or so that that’s been the case,” Dempsey said. “They clearly are on a path to assert themselves differently not just in Eastern Europe, but Europe in the main, and towards the United States.”
I heard this yesterday. Our newest contingents are over 20 years old.
Safer to let Putin have his way then try and play 20 years of catch up in one week.
“It does change the situation. You’ve got a Russian government that has made a conscious decision to use its military force inside another sovereign nation to achieve its objectives. It’s the first time since 1939 or so that that’s been the case,” Dempsey said. “They clearly are on a path to assert themselves differently not just in Eastern Europe, but Europe in the main, and towards the United States.”
I just learned that a way to get to read a full WSJ article is to take the article title and search it in google, and go to it from google. The whole article is then available to read. Linking it from the article only gets you to the page that asks you to subscribe to read the whole article. I will remember that down the road as I use the WSJ sometimes for a source as well.
. The article supports an assertion I made earlier in this thread ...
kurtster wrote:
That's local Malaysian time. It was in afternoon broad daylight in Ukraine and it was about 10 or 11 am here in EDT.
I'm making some assumptions and saying so. We no doubt have at least one bird parked over Ukraine and no doubt have pictures from the satellite in real time. The pictures are good enough to read headlines on newspapers laying on the ground. We have been monitoring Russian troop movements for months. For me to assume anything less of the US is to be stupid and foolish.
I watched this unfold live for the hours before and leading to and watching Obama's initial statement live as it happened and to more for several hours afterwards. I had seen video of the plane impacting well before Obama's speech.
If our government is incapable of figuring out simple things like this in short order, then great googidty moogidty we are in one heap of trouble. I will assume that our government has the capability and did know exactly what happened within a couple of hours. We are watching this area 24/7. I simply cannot believe that our government is incompetent at everything it does. And if it turns out to be incompetence that kept our President from being properly informed, once again, then WTF ? ...
From the article ...
The officials said that the U.S. detected a surface-to-air missile launch at the time that the airliner was hit, in roughly the same separatist-controlled area in Eastern Ukraine; that there has been a growing flow of weapons from Russia to separatists over the last month; that Russians have provided training for separatist fighters in southwest Russia on antiaircraft weapons and other arms; and that separatists have downed more than a dozen aircraft during the conflict.
U.S. officials who weren't part of the Tuesday briefing said American radar and space-based assets tracked the missile soon after its launch from rebel-held territory until its detonation near the Malaysian airliner.
From that data establishing the missile's track, intelligence analysts extrapolated the location of the SA-11 back to the area near the city of Snizhne, officials said. U.S. officials call this type of information measurement and signature intelligence, or MASINT.
I am relieved to find what I assumed to be was reasonable. I will also continue to assume that this info was passed on directly to our President in real time as well. It would be reasonable to assume that is the case considering that the area is under constant surveillance for the obvious reasons. It just further reinforces the case to make that Obama knew what had happened before he made his initial remarks on the shootdown. Again if he didn't, then WTF ?
This only goes to further add to the case against trust in Obama and now raises a concern about confidence in Obama's competence to be President. We have heard over and over again from Obama's defenders that he is the victim of gross government incompetence. I would say now that his own incompetence is more at fault if we are to accept his constant use of incompetence as an excuse for things going too wrong too much of the time. Or Obama is just so disconnected to be bothered to take his duties as CIC seriously, which would be illustrated by his use of the word may in his initial statement.
Steeler, you said you were not done with this yet. What say you now ?
The Obama Administration’s narrative of Russian guilt in the Malaysia Airlines MH17 downing is unraveling like a cheap sweater tonight, under the increasing realization that dubious social media-sourced evidence is essentially all there is, and the admission by US intelligence officials that there is no real evidence pointing to Russia at all.
What is now being euphemistically called “major evidentiary and legal obstacles,” but would more correctly be called “completely full of holes,” it is quickly becoming a case study in why random videos you found on YouTube are not a great way to build a case in a major international incident.
Take the photograph released over the weekend on social media, showing the putative 9k37 Buk that shot down the plane just hanging out in the middle of a quiet square in a rebel town. It would be pretty damning, if true, but it also would raise a lot of questions, chiefly why the rebels left the vehicle in such a conspicuous place during an alleged coverup.
The photo, like YouTube videos claiming to be the rebels confessing to the shoot-down but built on content created a day before the plane crashed in the first place, was quickly labeled “unable to be verified,” and with deeper digging seem probable forgeries.
People who have been on social media for more than a few minutes know how much nonsense is presented as absolute truth there, and the Obama Administration’s decision to base its entire case on stuff they read there, going to the extent of arguing with a dubious press, has clearly not served them well.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 24, 2014 - 9:40am
kurtster wrote:
My entire point has been based upon Obama's initial remarks made on the same day the plane went down and nothing else. You're trying to take it beyond that. You focus on Obama's followup remarks the next day. The two are separate events. On Obama's followup remarks on the next day, I gave him an unqualified thumbs up. First day, thumbs down. That's it.
The comparison to Obama's initial remarks on the same day of the crash is compared to Reagan's initial public comment, albeit it 4 days later. Both are initial comments, regardless of how soon after the events they were made. You seem unwilling to call Obama's statement on the same day as the crash his initial statement.
There really isn't any reason to drag this out any further as we disagree over which was the initial statement of Obama.
Done with this.
I am not done with it. There is no disagreement over which was the initial statement of Obama. You just made that up.
The issue is you stated the apt comparison was the initial statement of Obama on Day One versus the initial statement of Reagan on Day Five (although at the time of your intital statement to that effect, you apparently did not know that Reagan did not speak at all for 4 days or you were trying to finesse your comments). You said Reagan showed true leadership by immediately reacting to the incident —even though he did not make any statement until 4 days later. As I said in an earlier post: Was it not important enough to comment until 4 days later?
I would agree that this has been drawn out, but it is because of your insistence that Obama's initial statement — yes, the intitial statement on Day One — was of great importance, exposed his lack of leadership, and contributed to stock market crashes and all kinds of other global problems. All of which is hogwash in my opinion. It is imprudent to let these kinds of wholly unsupported allegations and spurious claims go unchallenged.
Reagan wrote this in his diary that evening: "We were due to return to Wash. on Labor Day but realized we couldn’t wait so we left on Fri. It was heartbreaking. I had really looked forward to those last three days. When we got in Fri, I went directly to a NSC (National Security Council) meeting re the Soviet affair."
Yeah,you offered that explanation after both ScottN and I had pointed out that Reagan's speech, to which you had linked in a preceding post — the one to which I referred in the post you now claim misrepresents what you said — had occurred 4 days later. Here is what I wrote in response to that post of yours::
My entire point has been based upon Obama's initial remarks made on the same day the plane went down and nothing else. You're trying to take it beyond that. You focus on Obama's followup remarks the next day. The two are separate events. On Obama's followup remarks on the next day, I gave him an unqualified thumbs up. First day, thumbs down. That's it.
The comparison to Obama's initial remarks on the same day of the crash is compared to Reagan's initial public comment, albeit it 4 days later. Both are initial comments, regardless of how soon after the events they were made. You seem unwilling to call Obama's statement on the same day as the crash his initial statement.
There really isn't any reason to drag this out any further as we disagree over which was the initial statement of Obama.
Yeah,you offered that explanation after both ScottN and I had pointed out that Reagan's speech, to which you had linked in a preceding post — the one to which I referred in the post you now claim misrepresents what you said — had occurred 4 days later. Here is what I wrote in response to that post of yours::
This is the standard I use for judging Obama ... I also know that nearly everyone who has participated in this thread the past couple of days holds Reagan in very low regard. Reagan immediately cancelled his vacation to return to Washington to deal with this head on. If you actually watch it, pay attention to the 9:50 mark and while watching, remember how primitive our technology was 21 years ago, yet so much was known immediately regarding the incident and was shared as soon as it became available. This is a clear and stark contrast to Obama ... This is real leadership.
Quickly,from the world of logic and reason: The Korean airliner was shot down on September 1, 1983. Reagan's addresss to the nation, the video of which you have supplied here, was made September 5, 1983. The facts that emerged were that the Soviets shot down the Korean airliner because it had entered Soviet air space. In fact, in the video, Reagan plays parts of the intercepted communications that served as evidence that the Soviets had intentionally fired the missile without knowing — or perhaps even knowing — that it was a commercial airliner. Compare and contrast. As you yourself have said in this thread today, at this point, this appears to be an accident that occurred in a war zone. The best information right now is that this probably was a missile fired by Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine who thought they were firing on a Ukraine military plane, not a commercial airliner. As information is gathered,perhaps the facts will show something different.
I just did. In your post in which you linked to the Reagan speech you stated that Reagan immediately cancelled his vacation to take on the issue head- on. You then state the video of his statement shows what could become immediately known even back then when technology was not as advanced as today. Not once did you state that the speech came 4 days after the plane went down. I was the one who pointed that out as did Scottn, I believe. i guess Reagan did not think it important enough to comment on before the 4th day?
Your frothing about Obama's initial statement as if it caused stock markets to crash and other plagues Is not only unsupported by facts, it is irrational. You keep alternating between saying it is unimportant and of supreme importance. make up your mind.
i give you more credit than what your arguments on this issue normally would be due. I attribute it to your inability to concede a point or admit you had it wrong. Find a mirror and practice saying: "I was wrong about that."
Yes I did. I immediately acknowledged it and linked to a time line. You are deliberately misrepresenting my remarks.
You just double down whenever someone calls you on *anything.* Let me try to type slower: He used the word, "reports." This is a word we might use when we're not willing/able to say the content of the reports is or is not verified.
We have reports of a train derailment ....
Whatever the reasoning behind using the word "reports," this train derailment may or may not be factual, you can't just go on talking about it as if it happened. To then say this train derailment is really messing up traffic, that would be premature. It might be false. To say it may be messing up traffic, well that's precise language.
When he used the word "reports," he was then compelled to use similar phrasing when referring to the content of the "reports."
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 23, 2014 - 7:13pm
kurtster wrote:
I was the first to post a timeline of the Reagan event. Backscroll.
You are obtuse. How can a commercial plane crash never be a tragedy ?
I just did. In your post in which you linked to the Reagan speech you stated that Reagan immediately cancelled his vacation to take on the issue head- on. You then state the video of his statement shows what could become immediately known even back then when technology was not as advanced as today. Not once did you state that the speech came 4 days after the plane went down. I was the one who pointed that out as did Scottn, I believe. i guess Reagan did not think it important enough to comment on before the 4th day?
Your frothing about Obama's initial statement as if it caused stock markets to crash and other plagues Is not only unsupported by facts, it is irrational. You keep alternating between saying it is unimportant and of supreme importance. make up your mind.
i give you more credit than what your arguments on this issue normally would be due. I attribute it to your inability to concede a point or admit you had it wrong. Find a mirror and practice saying: "I was wrong about that."
You are worried about facts being misrepresented? We have been over the ground of why he used the word "may" in the hours immediately following the crash of the plane. The statement cited in the article was made by Obama on Day Two. You (and others) were still carping about the initial statement well after that statement made on Day Two. . Reagan's statement did not come immediately, as you (and others) erroneously claimed. It came 4 days after the plane went down.
You may see it as leadership that Reagan did not understand the need to cut short his vacation, and only did so because aides implored him to do so, but I do not. In fact, it turns the notion of leadership on its head. He did not lead, he had to be told what to do. You have to understand the difference, so I am going to assume you are just refusing to acknowledge your initial misstatements and unsupported conclusions.
I was the first to post a timeline of the Reagan event. Backscroll.
You are obtuse. How can a commercial plane crash never be a tragedy ?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 23, 2014 - 12:40pm
kurtster wrote:
For the last time. The initial comment was that this "may be a terrible tragedy". Calling the incident an “outrage of unspeakable proportions.” came the next day. It was not the initial comment. Let's keep facts straight. It was all about one word "may". That is where all this begins and ends. Similar to what the meaning of the word is, is. The one word Obama used, may stopped the presses and there was an immediate whiplash across the board and reflected in the markets as well as the news. You may not consider what word choices mean to the markets and foreign nations and other entities, but this is what matters. And it is a legitimate concern especially when the president must suck up everything he has just to say the T word out loud.
Obama absolved himself with the speech the following day. And the comparisons to Reagan have largely faded away. Your article misleads the reader into thinking that the comparisons mostly came after the WH speech and not before. Had Obama at least said it is instead of it may, then nothing much would have been said between the initial comment and the WH speech.
This is the leader of the free world we're talking about. Every word he say's formally matters.
your mileage obviously varies ...
. Edit: After thinking a bit, I'm glad your article brought out the way Reagan's vacation was cancelled. It shows that Reagan was not surrounded by Yes Men, too afraid or too joined at the hip with tell him he was wrong and needed to do something that he thought differently on. And he listened to them and went back to DC to do what he was elected to do; be President even if it meant cutting a vacation short. The nation's business did come first. That's a leader.
You are worried about facts being misrepresented? We have been over the ground of why he used the word "may" in the hours immediately following the crash of the plane. The statement cited in the article was made by Obama on Day Two. You (and others) were still carping about the initial statement well after that statement made on Day Two. . Reagan's statement did not come immediately, as you (and others) erroneously claimed. It came 4 days after the plane went down.
You may see it as leadership that Reagan did not understand the need to cut short his vacation, and only did so because aides implored him to do so, but I do not. In fact, it turns the notion of leadership on its head. He did not lead, he had to be told what to do. You have to understand the difference, so I am going to assume you are just refusing to acknowledge your initial misstatements and unsupported conclusions.
Facts do not appear to support the contention that Obama's initial reactions to the shooting down of Malaysian airliner in Ukraine paled in comparison to Reagan's initial reactions to the downing of a Korean airliner in the Soviet Union in 1983.
Sometimes, ‘What Would Reagan Do?’ is the wrong question
After the public learned last week that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 had been shot down, killing all 298 people on board, it wasn’t long before an obvious comparison came to mind: in September 1983, a Russian fighter jet shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007. The attack left 269 passengers and crew dead, 62 of whom were American, including a member of Congress.
Olivia Kittel noted that for many Republicans, President Obama should not only follow Ronald Reagan’s example from 31 years ago, but also that Obama is already falling short of the Reagan example.
In the wake of a Malaysia Airlines jetliner crash, Fox News has rushed to conveniently rewrite history to disparage President Obama by drawing false comparisons to former President Ronald Reagan’s response to a 1983 attack on a Korean airliner.
After Fox News said Obama wasn’t Reagan-esque enough, plenty of other conservatives soon followed.
Let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane in case some have forgotten what actually happened in 1983.
After the Soviet pilot killed 269 people on a civilian airliner, Reagan’s aides didn’t bother to wake him up to tell him what happened. When the president was eventually briefed on developments, Reagan, who was on vacation in California at the time, announced he did not intend to cut his trip short. (Reagan’s aides later convinced him to return to the White House.)
Last week, Obama delivered a public address on the Malaysia Airlines plane about 24 hours after it was shot down, calling the incident an “outrage of unspeakable proportions.” Reagan also delivered stern words, but in contrast, he waited four days to deliver public remarks.
On the July 17 edition of Fox News’ The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly connected the July 17 tragedy to the 1983 Korean airliner crash, highlighting Reagan’s speech in response and noting in comparison that Obama has “been accused of ‘leading from behind.’ ” Fox contributor Chris Stirewalt compared Reagan’s response to Obama’s, saying Reagan’s response made Americans feel “reassured and resolute,” and Kelly echoed that Obama’s response “makes him look unconnected and makes a lot of Americans feel unrepresented.”
Such comparisons applauding Reagan’s 1983 response to attack Obama have reverberated throughout Fox News. Andrew Napolitano invoked Reagan’s response to insist Obama should “get on national television and call Vladimir Putin a killer.” Fox correspondent Peter Johnson Jr. said of Obama, “I think the president needs to take a page out of Ronald Reagan,” while Fox strategic analyst Ralph Peters suggested Obama’s strategy should reflect “clear speech, a la Ronald Reagan, backed up by firm action and with follow-through.”
This over-the-top Reagan worship isn’t just wrong; it’s ironic. In 1983, some of the prominent conservative media voices of the day actually complained bitterly that Reagan’s response was wholly inadequate.
George Will – yes, that George Will – called the Reagan White House’s arguments “pathetic” at the time, insisting, “It’s time for to act.”
The president responded publicly with rhetoric that made the president sound rather helpless. “Short of going to war, what would they have us do?” Reagan said. “I know that some of our critics have sounded off that somehow we haven’t exacted enough vengeance. Well, vengeance isn’t the name of the game in this.”
One wonders what the reaction would have been from the right and the Beltway media if Obama responded with similar rhetoric to a comparable situation.
For the last time. The initial comment was that this "may be a terrible tragedy". Calling the incident an “outrage of unspeakable proportions.” came the next day. It was not the initial comment. Let's keep facts straight. It was all about one word "may". That is where all this begins and ends. Similar to what the meaning of the word is, is. The one word Obama used, may stopped the presses and there was an immediate whiplash across the board and reflected in the markets as well as the news. You may not consider what word choices mean to the markets and foreign nations and other entities, but this is what matters. And it is a legitimate concern especially when the president must suck up everything he has just to say the T word out loud.
Obama absolved himself with the speech the following day. And the comparisons to Reagan have largely faded away. Your article misleads the reader into thinking that the comparisons mostly came after the WH speech and not before. Had Obama at least said it is instead of it may, then nothing much would have been said between the initial comment and the WH speech.
This is the leader of the free world we're talking about. Every word he say's formally matters.
your mileage obviously varies ...
. Edit: After thinking a bit, I'm glad your article brought out the way Reagan's vacation was cancelled. It shows that Reagan was not surrounded by Yes Men, too afraid or too joined at the hip with tell him he was wrong and needed to do something that he thought differently on. And he listened to them and went back to DC to do what he was elected to do; be President even if it meant cutting a vacation short. The nation's business did come first. That's a leader.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:36am
Facts do not appear to support the contention that Obama's initial reactions to the shooting down of Malaysian airliner in Ukraine paled in comparison to Reagan's initial reactions to the downing of a Korean airliner in the Soviet Union in 1983.
Sometimes, ‘What Would Reagan Do?’ is the wrong question
After the public learned last week that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 had been shot down, killing all 298 people on board, it wasn’t long before an obvious comparison came to mind: in September 1983, a Russian fighter jet shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007. The attack left 269 passengers and crew dead, 62 of whom were American, including a member of Congress.
Olivia Kittel noted that for many Republicans, President Obama should not only follow Ronald Reagan’s example from 31 years ago, but also that Obama is already falling short of the Reagan example.
In the wake of a Malaysia Airlines jetliner crash, Fox News has rushed to conveniently rewrite history to disparage President Obama by drawing false comparisons to former President Ronald Reagan’s response to a 1983 attack on a Korean airliner.
After Fox News said Obama wasn’t Reagan-esque enough, plenty of other conservatives soon followed.
Let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane in case some have forgotten what actually happened in 1983.
After the Soviet pilot killed 269 people on a civilian airliner, Reagan’s aides didn’t bother to wake him up to tell him what happened. When the president was eventually briefed on developments, Reagan, who was on vacation in California at the time, announced he did not intend to cut his trip short. (Reagan’s aides later convinced him to return to the White House.)
Last week, Obama delivered a public address on the Malaysia Airlines plane about 24 hours after it was shot down, calling the incident an “outrage of unspeakable proportions.” Reagan also delivered stern words, but in contrast, he waited four days to deliver public remarks.
On the July 17 edition of Fox News’ The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly connected the July 17 tragedy to the 1983 Korean airliner crash, highlighting Reagan’s speech in response and noting in comparison that Obama has “been accused of ‘leading from behind.’ ” Fox contributor Chris Stirewalt compared Reagan’s response to Obama’s, saying Reagan’s response made Americans feel “reassured and resolute,” and Kelly echoed that Obama’s response “makes him look unconnected and makes a lot of Americans feel unrepresented.”
Such comparisons applauding Reagan’s 1983 response to attack Obama have reverberated throughout Fox News. Andrew Napolitano invoked Reagan’s response to insist Obama should “get on national television and call Vladimir Putin a killer.” Fox correspondent Peter Johnson Jr. said of Obama, “I think the president needs to take a page out of Ronald Reagan,” while Fox strategic analyst Ralph Peters suggested Obama’s strategy should reflect “clear speech, a la Ronald Reagan, backed up by firm action and with follow-through.”
This over-the-top Reagan worship isn’t just wrong; it’s ironic. In 1983, some of the prominent conservative media voices of the day actually complained bitterly that Reagan’s response was wholly inadequate.
George Will – yes, that George Will – called the Reagan White House’s arguments “pathetic” at the time, insisting, “It’s time for to act.”
The president responded publicly with rhetoric that made the president sound rather helpless. “Short of going to war, what would they have us do?” Reagan said. “I know that some of our critics have sounded off that somehow we haven’t exacted enough vengeance. Well, vengeance isn’t the name of the game in this.”
One wonders what the reaction would have been from the right and the Beltway media if Obama responded with similar rhetoric to a comparable situation.
The New York Times (7/22/14) didn't mince words in its editorial on the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: "Whoever unleashed a lethal missile not knowing how to distinguish between a military and a civilian plane is not only irresponsible and stupid, but a war criminal."
That seems pretty unequivocal. But if you look at the New York Times' archives, you'll see that some people who unleash lethal missiles without knowing how to distinguish between military and civilian planes aren't irresponsible, stupid or criminal–they're just doing what they had to do. Of course, if you're going to shoot down a civilian jetliner–from the Times' point of view–it helps to be working for the US Navy when you do it.
When the Navy shot down Iran Air 655 over the Persian Gulf in 1988, killing all 290 people on board (Extra!, 7/88), the Times editorial (7/5/88) insisted that "while horrifying, it was nonetheless an accident. On present evidence, it's hard to see what the Navy could have done to avoid it."
Far from denouncing Will Rogers, the captain of the USS Vincennes that brought down the passenger plane, as "irresponsible and stupid," let alone a "war criminal," the Times invited readers to "put yourself in Captain Rogers' shoes." He "had little choice," the paper assured. "It is hard to fault his decision to attack the suspect plane."
Bear in mind that this is not one of the ragtag separatists the Times points to in the Malaysia Airlines case–so unsophisticated that the Times suspects they must have had outside help to learn how to use a surface-to-air missile. Rogers was a high-ranking professional military officer who had at his command the finest surveillance and computer technology that the Cold War produced. Still, it's his "not knowing how to distinguish between a military and a civilian plane," not the separatists', that the Times finds easy to empathize with.
Has the Times just grown less forgiving over the years? Well, not really. A few years before the downing of Flight 655, the Times published a blistering editorial (9/2/83) about the Soviet Union shooting down Korean Airlines Flight 007. "There is no conceivable excuse for any nation shooting down a harmless airliner," it began. (...)
dude ... its the nytimes ...